30

Electronic SurveillanceTitle III Orders

The Order must meet the following requirements:

The authorizing language of the order should mirror the requesting
language of the application and affidavit, stating that there is
probable cause to believe that the named subjects are committing
particular Title III predicate offenses (or, in the case of
electronic communications, any Federal felony), that particular
communications concerning those offenses will be obtained through
interception, and that normal investigative techniques have been
tried and have failed, or are reasonably unlikely to succeed if
tried, or are too dangerous to employ. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(3) and
(4). The court then orders (again tracking the language of the
application and affidavit) that agents of the investigative agency
are authorized to intercept wire, oral, or electronic
communications over the described facility or at the described
premises. Id. The order should also contain language
specifying the length of time the interception may be conducted,
and, if necessary, authorizing surreptitious and/or forcible entry
to effectuate the purpose of the order. Id. The order may
also contain language mandating the government to make periodic
progress reports (pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2518(6)), and ordering
the sealing of those as well as the order, application and
affidavit. In the case of a roving interception, the court must
make a specific finding that the requirements of 18 U.S.C. §
2518(11)(a) and/or (b) have been demonstrated adequately. Any other
special requests, such as extra-jurisdictional interception in the
case of mobile interception devices and enforceability of the order
as to changed service providers without further order of the court,
should also be authorized specifically in the order.

The court should also issue a technical assistance order to the
communications service provider. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(4). This is a
redacted order that requires the telephone company or other service
provider to assist the agents in effecting the electronic
surveillance. OEO does not review redacted service provider orders.
An order to seal all of the pleadings should also be sought at this
time.

The Application, Affidavit, and Order should be sent via email to
OEO at ESU.Requests@usdoj.gov.
Submissions must include a
completed Title III cover sheet that includes the signature of a
supervising attorney who reviewed and approved the Title III
papers. Criminal Division policy requires that all Title III
submissions be approved by a supervising attorney other than the
attorney submitting the application. That supervisory attorney must
sign the Title III cover sheet, demonstrating that he or she has
reviewed the affidavit, application, and draft order included in
the submission packet, and that, in light of the overall
investigative plan for the matter, and taking into account
applicable Department policies and procedures, he or she supports
the request and approves of it. The Title III cover sheet, with a
space for the supervisor's signature, may be found on ESU's DOJNet
site.

Spinoff requests (e.g., additional applications to conduct
electronic surveillance over a new facility or at a new location in
the same investigation) and extension requests are reviewed in the
same manner as described above. While the exigencies of
investigative work occasionally make the normally required lead
time impossible, the timeliness with which an application is
reviewed and authorized is largely under the control of the
Assistant United States Attorney handling the case. When
coordinating an investigation or planning extension requests, it is
important to allow sufficient time for the Title III application to
be reviewed by OEO. OEO strongly recommends that extension requests
be submitted up to a week in advance of the date on which the
interception period expires.

Questions or requests for assistance may be directed to ESU at
(202) 514-6809. Sample Title III forms are available by email
from ESU or on ESU's DOJNet site.